Manjula Chellur,CJ
Petitioner has approached this Court complaining harassment at the hands of respondent-police. He also relies upon the decision D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997(1) SCC 416) in support of his contentions.
2. As per directions of this Court, a statement is filed by 2nd respondent clearly giving the details why they had to summon petitioner to the police station in connection with unnatural death of one Shobana, aged 53 years, wife of Velayudan. Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the statement are relevant in order to understand what exactly is the investigation undertaken by respondent police.
“2. It is respectfully submitted that Crime 404/14 u/c.Un natural death case was registered at 11.15 hours on 01.03.2014 on the basis of the complaint of one Mr.Sajeevan, 32/14, W.P.(C) No.11680 of 2014 2 S/o.Velayudahan, Puthiyedath House, Vadama Village. Brief of the case is that the complainant's mother Sobhana aged 53 years, W/o.Velayudhan, Puthiyedath House, Vadama Village was seen dead with injuries over her body on the verandha of the old Electricity Office situated in the compound of “Pambumekkatu Mana” at Vadama on 01.03.2014.
3. It is submitted that as per the postmortem report it was revealed that she was raped and murdered. On the basis of the findings of the postmortem, the section of the case was altered as 376,302 IPC on 03.03.2014 and the case is still under investigation.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is one of the prime suspected persons in this crime. During the investigation it has been revealed that the deceased Shobhana was a prostitute. A secrete information was obtained that the petitioner Salam and the deceased Shobhana had illicit sexual relationship. Another credible information obtained was that petitioner Salam had illicit relationship with another married woman and they used to have sexual intercourse at the house of deceased Shobhana with her consent and knowledge. Thereafter there aroused some dispute between the said woman and deceased Shobhana and they became inimical to each other. Following this, petitioner Salam and that woman apprehended that Shobhana would disclose their illicit relationship. So they decided to kill Shobhana and accordingly executed their plan. On the basis of the above secret and credible information, petitioner Salam was summoned before the investigating team on certain occasions and was questioned. He was not at all harassed either mentally or physically at any stage of W.P.(C) No.11680 of 2014 3 the interrogation. The allegation contrary to the same are false and hence denied.”
3. In the light of above said three paragraphs, we are of the opinion, petitioner was summoned only for the purpose of interrogation with regard to the investigation of unnatural death of Smt Shobana. This cannot be called as harassment in the light of above judgment of the Apex Court. It is always open to the petitioner to take his advocate also with him, if he apprehends any ill treatment at the hands of respondent-police, whenever he is summoned to the police station.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj 2/06